The Palestinians must not repeat their mistake of 1947
yosi
NYC Posts: 3,069
The Palestinians must not repeat their mistake of 1947
There are two choices in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the two-state solution, or descent of the region into chaos that will make earlier rounds of bloodletting look tame.
By Carlo Strenger
For the time being, the United States has mercifully stopped the embarrassing haggling about the settlement freeze. While Obama’s administration officially says that it will continue to look for ways of reviving the peace process, it is probably realizing what has been fairly clear since Benjamin Netanyahu chose to form a coalition with his "natural" partners, Avigdor Lieberman and Shas: this government is unable and unwilling to deliver an agreement with the Palestinians.
This is precisely the Palestinians’ moment of truth. For a century they have felt that they are victims of history and not agents. The tables are turning now, because at this point, there is only one practical strategy to break the deadlock: Salaam Fayyad’s plan of declaring Palestinian statehood in 2011 and seeking international recognition for it, while implementing de facto sovereignty over the territories already under Palestinian control. Recent developments, like the recognition of Palestine by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, as well as the EU’s declaration that it will recognize a Palestinian state at a suitable moment, show that Fayyad’s strategy stands a good chance of succeeding.
This could mean that the Palestinians could be on the way to correct their historical mistake of rejecting the UN partition plan for Palestine in 1947; a mistake that has cost them decades of terrible suffering. But they must make sure that their strategy will allow a future Israeli government that will replace Netanyahu’s current extreme-right coalition to engage with the Palestinian peace plan.
They must state explicitly that the establishment of Palestine along the 1967 borders would end the conflict. Most importantly: while they would want moral recognition of their tragedy of 1948 and some form of restitution to the refugees of 1948, they should accept something along the peace plan of Yuval Rabin , which states that the right of return will not be implemented except in a few symbolic instances.
Quite unfortunately, there are indications that the Palestinians may continue their unfortunate tendency never to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In a recent article in the Guardian, Saeb Erekat wrote that the Palestinian right of return is a central issue, and went on to say that, “Israel's recognition of Palestinian refugee rights and its agreement to provide reparation and meaningful refugee choice in the exercise of these rights will not change the reality in the Middle East overnight, nor will it lead to an existential crisis for Israel.”
Akiva Eldar and I have written a rejoinder in which we express our disappointment at Erekat’s formulation. We would have expected more political wisdom from the Palestinian chief negotiator. His statement plays into the hands of Israel’s right, which has claimed for decades that the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s existence. He cannot possibly say in good faith that the idea of the realization of the Palestinian right of return “will not lead to an existential crisis for Israel”. The option of millions of Palestinians settling in Israel would mean no less than the end of the Homeland of the Jews.
It needs to be clear that even liberals like Akiva Eldar and me, who have been for a Palestinian state since long before the PLO and Israel ever talked to each other, have red lines that we will not cross. While we can understand the Palestinians’ need for recognition of their suffering and Israel’s partial responsibility for it, and the desire for some form of restitution, actual return of Palestinians in large numbers into Israel inside the 1967 borders is not an option we, like all Israelis, can live with.
The deepest reason most Israelis are weary of signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians is that they don’t believe that such an agreement will guarantee Israel’s long-term security and survival. They are afraid that the two-state solution is really a two-stage solution; that once a Palestinian state is established within the 1967 borders, the Palestinians will continue to demand the right of return to the State of Israel. As a result, Israel would not receive final legitimacy from the Arab world while losing the negotiating chip of the settlements; and the Jewish homeland would continue to be under threat.
Through the demand to actually implement the Palestinian right of return, as Erekat seems to be implying, Palestinians condemn themselves, Israel and the whole region to further decades of violence, trauma and enormous suffering. Their theory that Jews in Israel will ultimately renounce the idea of a Jewish homeland is wrong. Against the backdrop of twentieth century history, Israel will fight for its existence to the bitter end.
I don’t expect empathy from Palestinians for Jewish history, and they don’t need to identify with us to realize that there are but two choices: the two-state solution, or descent of the region into chaos that will make earlier rounds of bloodletting look tame.
The Palestinians must realize that Israel’s political system and its collective psyche are frozen in paralysis. With all of Israel’s military might, and its remarkable technological and cultural creativity, little should be expected, at least from the current government, in terms of political courage. While to the world Israel is the stronger party in the conflict, the paradox is that, at this point, it is up to the Palestinians to determine the future of the region.
If they now try to capitalize on their international advantage to push for the implementation of the right of return, they will repeat their historical mistake of 1947, and once again reject the partition of the area west of the Jordan River. It is to be hoped that instead they will follow Salaam Fayyad’s lead and choose a life of dignity, peace and freedom alongside Israel.
There are two choices in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the two-state solution, or descent of the region into chaos that will make earlier rounds of bloodletting look tame.
By Carlo Strenger
For the time being, the United States has mercifully stopped the embarrassing haggling about the settlement freeze. While Obama’s administration officially says that it will continue to look for ways of reviving the peace process, it is probably realizing what has been fairly clear since Benjamin Netanyahu chose to form a coalition with his "natural" partners, Avigdor Lieberman and Shas: this government is unable and unwilling to deliver an agreement with the Palestinians.
This is precisely the Palestinians’ moment of truth. For a century they have felt that they are victims of history and not agents. The tables are turning now, because at this point, there is only one practical strategy to break the deadlock: Salaam Fayyad’s plan of declaring Palestinian statehood in 2011 and seeking international recognition for it, while implementing de facto sovereignty over the territories already under Palestinian control. Recent developments, like the recognition of Palestine by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, as well as the EU’s declaration that it will recognize a Palestinian state at a suitable moment, show that Fayyad’s strategy stands a good chance of succeeding.
This could mean that the Palestinians could be on the way to correct their historical mistake of rejecting the UN partition plan for Palestine in 1947; a mistake that has cost them decades of terrible suffering. But they must make sure that their strategy will allow a future Israeli government that will replace Netanyahu’s current extreme-right coalition to engage with the Palestinian peace plan.
They must state explicitly that the establishment of Palestine along the 1967 borders would end the conflict. Most importantly: while they would want moral recognition of their tragedy of 1948 and some form of restitution to the refugees of 1948, they should accept something along the peace plan of Yuval Rabin , which states that the right of return will not be implemented except in a few symbolic instances.
Quite unfortunately, there are indications that the Palestinians may continue their unfortunate tendency never to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In a recent article in the Guardian, Saeb Erekat wrote that the Palestinian right of return is a central issue, and went on to say that, “Israel's recognition of Palestinian refugee rights and its agreement to provide reparation and meaningful refugee choice in the exercise of these rights will not change the reality in the Middle East overnight, nor will it lead to an existential crisis for Israel.”
Akiva Eldar and I have written a rejoinder in which we express our disappointment at Erekat’s formulation. We would have expected more political wisdom from the Palestinian chief negotiator. His statement plays into the hands of Israel’s right, which has claimed for decades that the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s existence. He cannot possibly say in good faith that the idea of the realization of the Palestinian right of return “will not lead to an existential crisis for Israel”. The option of millions of Palestinians settling in Israel would mean no less than the end of the Homeland of the Jews.
It needs to be clear that even liberals like Akiva Eldar and me, who have been for a Palestinian state since long before the PLO and Israel ever talked to each other, have red lines that we will not cross. While we can understand the Palestinians’ need for recognition of their suffering and Israel’s partial responsibility for it, and the desire for some form of restitution, actual return of Palestinians in large numbers into Israel inside the 1967 borders is not an option we, like all Israelis, can live with.
The deepest reason most Israelis are weary of signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians is that they don’t believe that such an agreement will guarantee Israel’s long-term security and survival. They are afraid that the two-state solution is really a two-stage solution; that once a Palestinian state is established within the 1967 borders, the Palestinians will continue to demand the right of return to the State of Israel. As a result, Israel would not receive final legitimacy from the Arab world while losing the negotiating chip of the settlements; and the Jewish homeland would continue to be under threat.
Through the demand to actually implement the Palestinian right of return, as Erekat seems to be implying, Palestinians condemn themselves, Israel and the whole region to further decades of violence, trauma and enormous suffering. Their theory that Jews in Israel will ultimately renounce the idea of a Jewish homeland is wrong. Against the backdrop of twentieth century history, Israel will fight for its existence to the bitter end.
I don’t expect empathy from Palestinians for Jewish history, and they don’t need to identify with us to realize that there are but two choices: the two-state solution, or descent of the region into chaos that will make earlier rounds of bloodletting look tame.
The Palestinians must realize that Israel’s political system and its collective psyche are frozen in paralysis. With all of Israel’s military might, and its remarkable technological and cultural creativity, little should be expected, at least from the current government, in terms of political courage. While to the world Israel is the stronger party in the conflict, the paradox is that, at this point, it is up to the Palestinians to determine the future of the region.
If they now try to capitalize on their international advantage to push for the implementation of the right of return, they will repeat their historical mistake of 1947, and once again reject the partition of the area west of the Jordan River. It is to be hoped that instead they will follow Salaam Fayyad’s lead and choose a life of dignity, peace and freedom alongside Israel.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Here's what Yasser Abed Rabbo - senior Palestinian official said in response to U.S and Israeli demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.318835
PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders
Published 11:00 13.10.10
Yasser Abed Rabbo says that in exchange for accepting Palestinian territorial claims, it will recognize Israel as 'whatever it wants.'
Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said on Wednesday that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem.
In response to U.S. State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley's statement on Tuesday night that the Palestinians should respond to the Israeli demand, Abed Rabbo told Haaretz, "We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept."
"If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour," added Rabbo.
Abed Rabbo continued, "It is important for us to know where are the borders of Israel and where are the borders of Palestine. Any formulation the Americans present – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders. We have recognized Israel in the past, but Israel has not recognized the Palestinian state."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As for the question of the refugees, I see no reason why they shouldn't accept massive compensation from Israel, with a compromise on how many Palestinians can be permitted to return to their homes. Maybe this is the biggest stumbling block of all - on the Palestinians side - but I see no reason why it cannot be resolved either physically or financially.
as soon as israel says they are willing to move to 1967 borders - we will be 95% of the way there ... the only way this is going to happen is if a new wave of politicians take over in israel ... the same guys have been doing the same things for years ...
there are actually 3 choices in the occupation.
1) a 1 state solution. Israel fears democracy, understandable. they wish to maintain the jewish majority, fine. expanding into arab lands may not be the best way to go about this, but this is still a choice that could bring peace to the region.
2)a 2 state solution. this has been agreed to by israel's enemies. the only obstacle to this solution is israel.
3)israel and the united states simply take what they want. this will lead to the latter choice the op article excerpted above listed.
there's no gray area in any of this. its entirely up to israel if they want peace or not.
How about this
The Us invade Isreal and take all the homes off them . wall the fuckers in and shoot at them everytime they protest.
then when somebody gets so pissed that they strap a bomb to their chest and kill some innocent americans well that would give the Us gov the right to bomb the crap out of the whole area.
cause thats whats happening now and has been happening.
2 choices
my way or highway
If I was in their position I would be doing what they do
what would you do, cower like a dog takling what your given.
or being a man and taking back whats yours.
SO SICK OF THIS SHIT
we teach our kids to share dont we
sorry just on edge
Israel and Its Neighbors
Leveling the Playing Field
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
In the last few years, both Zionism and the occupation have been criticized, if not to death, as fully as possible. America's pro-Israel loudmouths should deceive no one: most of the world has taken the criticisms to heart. Even Israel's supposed undying allies know the occupation has to end; so do a majority of Israelis.Though some of the preachier critics love to think otherwise, the US government - meaning the executive branch - has known this for some time. Its official position has always been that the occupation has to end. As for the massive aid accorded to Israel, two points should be borne in mind. First, the US gives at least as much aid, including military aid, to the Arab states and Pakistan - and sells advanced weapons to the Gulf States. Second, the aid is largely part of a pathetic attempt to bribe Israel into something like a reasonable accommodation with the Arab world.
Some suppose that the attempt is pathetic because it is insincere. This view is wildly optimistic, and presupposes an article of faith curiously popular on the left: that America is a colossus which can, with the beckoning of a finger, bring to heel the pygmies that surround it. Whatever the truth about American power in general, this certainly does not hold in the case of Israel. The power of the entire Western world may not suffice to bring that country to heel.
Israel is not only a nuclear power, but one of the world's leading nuclear powers. What's more, it is the only nuclear power that has openly toyed with the idea of using nuclear weapons even when that would be suicidal. Israeli strategists, perhaps assured of divine approval, call this the Samson option. With a bit of ingenuity and luck, Israel could manage a very credible first strike against any power on earth. It won't do so, of course, but the 'of course' relies on our assurance that not even the other leading nuclear powers would use military force to compel Israel to do anything at all. So push come to shove, in the case of Israel, there is no push, and no shove.
What then, if the US 'turned off the aid spigot'? Israel's critics, not excluding some Israelis, are increasingly indignant in their demands for this to happen. Again, they are wildly optimistic. No doubt Israel finds US aid a great convenience. But the US also finds Israeli aid a great convenience. Israel's defense establishment not only produces but develops many capabilities of vital importance to the US, among them anti-missile systems, drones, and cyberwarfare solutions. And this is why economic sanctions wouldn't work. Israel has an abundance of technology and even military hardware that much of the world would line up to buy, at almost any price. Not only would Israel be able to sustain itself financially and economically; it would do so through commerce that the West could only consider catastrophic.
This doesn't mean the Israel/Palestine conflict is insoluble. It means that any solution is out of 'our' hands - of the critics, certainly, and even of the Western powers. The solution, if there is one, will have to be built on a true balance of power in the Middle East. The prospects for such a balance are not entirely dim, but they involve realities that few are willing to face.
At best (!), the prospects of peace, of an end to Israeli/Palestinian 'terror', lie in the hands of those alleged terrorists, Hizbollah, and their sponsors, including Iran. Perhaps Hizbollah is just powerful enough so that Israelis will, like white South Africa, see the writing on the wall, and settle with their conquered people. Until the next war with Lebanon, the chances of this are anyone's guess.
There is, however, a more frightening possibility. It can be rendered less frightening only if the West bows to the inevitable.
The 'Arab' world, like Iran, certainly realizes the crushing and dangerous advantage represented by Israeli nuclear weapons. Yet these countries lack the capacity to confront Israel and the political clout to make others do so. What if the means to acquire this clout became available?
In fact the means are already at hand.
By now, the world, and therefore the 'Arab' world, knows that the West will never, ever, act against Israel: the very opportunity to do so has slipped away. Sooner or later, this will drive Israel's neighbors to their only alternative. It is cost-effective, not only in dollars but very likely in lives.
Arab nations, and Iran, would be quite within their rights to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation agreements. (These in any case are scandalous in their net effect, which is to protect Israel from military competition while securing Israel's carte blanche in the nuclear arena.) The Arab world, likely with the cooperation of other nations, could then pursue a collective program of nuclear development and research, with the declared and explicit purpose of securing military as well as civilian nuclear capacity.
The mere announcement of these plans - with their effects on Israeli morale and Western resolve - might produce considerable results at no real cost to anyone. Should Israel persist in its obstinacy, development would proceed, increasing the pressure to find - impose - a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. One might think this very idea a piece of wild-eyed extremism. But what is extreme is to let Israel first develop and then brandish nuclear weapons, while tying the hands of all its potential victims. To untie their hands is simply to return to the balance-of-power politics that, for centuries, has been seen as the best guarantor of peace.
Today, this is mere fantasy. But the Arab world, with support from the non-Arab Muslim world, will change enough to put this strategy within the realm of the possible. Collectively, those nations have ample wealth and technical abilities. They are increasingly aware of the need to put aside old animosities. And presumably they will eventually tire of being treated with contempt.
And what is the role of the West in this? Only to stay out of the way; it is capable of no more. Instead, there will be hand-wringing, hysteria, moral epilepsy. Perhaps the fits will pass, and the West will find the resolve to do what it has done so well for so long: nothing.
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at a Canadian university. He is the author of What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel. He also contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:mneumann@live.com">mneumann@live.com</a><!-- e -->